tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post9063126115072641898..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Further analysis of Rav Belsky's teshuva on Anisakis Worms in Fishjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1557927776903795852010-06-13T22:31:35.576-04:002010-06-13T22:31:35.576-04:00Yeshivish:
"It seems, that shoretz bamayim is...Yeshivish:<br />"It seems, that shoretz bamayim is not the only factor and the host is take into account as well. Since krill is not a kosher species there would be no reason to issue a lenient ruling."<br />Rabbi Belsky addresses this directly in the Hebrew teshuva, in the two paragraphs I linked to. he gives <b>many</b> reasons it would be OK. Whether or not you would agree with his assessment is another matter. Check out the logic and decide. for example, based on Chavos Daasm siman 81, seif katon 2: שחוץ מדין אבר מן החי שנאמרה רק על מה שיוצא מבריה טהורה אין לאסור שום דבר שיוצא מן הבריה הטמאה מלבד מה שיש עליו דרשה מיוחדת לאסור, ובמקום שלא דרשו חז"ל נשאר בהתירו ובריה חדשה שנוצר בתוך דג אף שיצא מביצים שהתחילו מחוצה לו אין לאסור כי אין כאן דרשה ולימוד מעולם לאסור תולעים של דג טמא. So you cannot extrapolate from the ever min hachai by the behaima tehora. Agree or disagree; you have the right. But it is not the case that "there would be <b>no reason</b> to issue a lenient ruling."<br /><br />regardless, none of these posts so far is the complete reason i think we may be lenient.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-48440380878722373842010-06-13T19:42:56.211-04:002010-06-13T19:42:56.211-04:00In a case where a worm grows inside a kosher anima...In a case where a worm grows inside a kosher animal the halacha is not the same. Why? The Gemmarah explains that since an animal needs to be slaughtered the worm does not get justified as a kosher worm. A fish on the other hand does not need slaughtering and can be eaten immediately. It seems, that shoretz bamayim is not the only factor and the host is take into account as well. Since krill is not a kosher species there would be no reason to issue a lenient ruling . The Gemmara is unsure about when a worm travels directly from one date into another because dates are kosher. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be sufficient grounds to be lenient.Yeshivishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-15926294496792272722010-06-13T11:44:33.038-04:002010-06-13T11:44:33.038-04:00interesting ideas; i need to think about them a bi...interesting ideas; i need to think about them a bit, and study the material a bit more.<br /><br />some of this is addressed in Rabbi Belsky's full teshuva, I think, in the paragraphs following this one:<br />נכון להזכיר כאן מה שטענו אחדים שעל אף שברור שאין לתולעים אלו לא דין שרץ המים ולא דין שרץ העוף ולר דין שרץ הארץ כי מעולם לא רחשו לא במים ולא בארץ וכ"ש שלא עפו באויר כמבואר הכל לעיל בטוטו"ד, מ"מ מצד אחר יש לדון עליהם משום שהצטרפו למעיי בריאה טמאה כגון השרימ"פ וקרי"ל ושאר בריות שגרו בתוכם לזמן ואולי יש לאוסרם משום שנמצאו בתוך בריאה טמאה ויש להחשיבם כיוצא מן הטמא וא"כ שוב אין להתירם במה שהצטרף לבשר הדג ונעשו כמותו<br /><br />rabbi belsky seems to understand "minei gavlei" not as that it assumes the status of the fish from which it grows (whether muttar or assur), but that since it grew from the fish, it never had to opportunity to be shoretz. and this is a plausible reading of the Beis Yosef and Pri Megadim. while indeed this is not explicitly mentioned by the gemara, i do think it is a possible reading of the gemara, given the gemaras in context, even assuming they were operating under the assumption of spontaneous generation.<br /><br />i'll try to check out the discussion of taaroves and berya. thanks for pointing it out. i indeed have a suggestion of sfek sfeka i was planning on putting up tomorrow.<br /><br />in terms of the metzius, from this website:<br />http://www.wetwebmedia.com/roundwor.htm<br />the eggs are 48-54 microns.<br />the larvae are 200 microns in length<br /><br />for comparison's sake, a piece of hair's width ranges from 40 to 120 microns. it is quite possible that the eggs, and if so, certainly the larvae, are visible to the human eye without a microscope. even so, the hair is <b>long</b>, and perhaps that is why we can see it even though it is not so wide.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-87834557675020301922010-06-13T10:55:59.084-04:002010-06-13T10:55:59.084-04:00Even if it is true that the anisakis is consumed b...Even if it is true that the anisakis is consumed by the crustacean in its egg form (perhaps microscopic larvae would also be Ok - I believe that in reality it is always either microscopic larvae or egg?), can we be sure that consumption is permissible?<br />We are under the assumption that the prohibition against sheretz hamayim is only on an organism which was shoretz bamayim and is no longer bamayim (e.g. inside a fish body or on a plate). The first condition is not AFAIK mentioned explicity in the gemara but is implied in the sugya of kukiani. A similar condition is required of sheretz haaretz, i.e. that it must crawl on the ground outside of (detached - according to one opinion) produce. The gemara is in doubt in a case where a worm travels directly from one date into another even though it never was directly exposed to air or ground. Could this perhaps be compared to the fish consuming the krill, where the worm travels directly from the krill to the fish (in which case we have safeik issur)? Or, perhaps the fact that the krill is already inside the fish's body creates a distinction.<br /><br />Furthermore, in the sugya of darni, the gemara gives the darni the status of the host and therefore with fish (as opposed to animals which require shechita) the worms are OK, because minei gavli. If so, perhaps a worm which is minei gavli of a forbidden species such as krill, would not be permissible even if it subsequently was consumed by a kosher fish.<br /><br />Another factor, to consider is that the worm is batel min hatorah if it is not easily discernible in the fish. In which case we are only dealing with an issur derabbanan which combined with the safek above (and/or a safek if the organism is present) may be allowed.<br />(See the discussion mentioned in the aroch hashulchan regarding the acharonim who say that beria is betela in such cases and there is no issur at all, but if you look at the acharonim who disagree they all assume that this is considered taaroves and the only issue is beriya. The Aroch Hashulchan says this explicitly. Even the Taz who is machmir regarding achbera against rama and shach, regarding beriya he assumes that tolayim are a taaroves, probably because they aren't nikkar behedya.)<br /><br />Just some thought. I would love to hear your opinion. Thanks.Daniel Tnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-52538122501599246152010-06-13T10:51:57.992-04:002010-06-13T10:51:57.992-04:00What do you think about Rav Elyashiv's psak?What do you think about Rav Elyashiv's psak?E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-49956229185007090682010-06-13T10:30:50.992-04:002010-06-13T10:30:50.992-04:00very nice teshuvavery nice teshuvaAvraham https://www.blogger.com/profile/07822433921393627746noreply@blogger.com